News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

Fundamentally, we disagree.

As someone who has walked the halls of Queen's Park some, and City Hall more often (and for that matter, albeit much more rarely, Parliament), and someone who neither has a desire to be a victim, nor see anyone else there become one, I simply don't share your degree of apprehension.

You should know, sadly, that death threats to politicians, even ours, are remarkably common.

That's not ok in the least. Persons engaged in such nonsense should be prosecuted.

However, we don't militarize our legislatures or City Hall over what are mostly keyboard warriors.

I don't deny there are risks in that; but I'm also aware of the likely extent of them; and further, than militarizing a legislature actually doesn't provide anything close to complete protection anyway.

You're entitled to your preference.

I simply don't share it.
 
Northern Light said:
Fundamentally, we disagree.

As someone who has walked the halls of Queen's Park some, and City Hall more often (and for that matter, albeit much more rarely, Parliament), and someone who neither has a desire to be a victim, nor see anyone else there become one, I simply don't share your degree of apprehension.

You should know, sadly, that death threats to politicians, even ours, are remarkably common.

That's not ok in the least. Persons engaged in such nonsense should be prosecuted.

However, we don't militarize our legislatures or City Hall over what are mostly keyboard warriors.

I don't deny there are risks in that; but I'm also aware of the likely extent of them; and further, than militarizing a legislature actually doesn't provide anything close to complete protection anyway.

You're entitled to your preference.

I simply don't share it.
Click to expand...

Do you *really* want to compare Ontario Legislature or City Hall to the US Capitol on Jan 6th? I am normally quite sympathetic towards the call for a transparent, accessible legislature, but I think equating our relatively peaceful and civil experience as a guide to what "should be" in DC - especially in light of the continual and demonstrably serious threats - is fundamentally in error and a misreading of the circumstances. Whether you have walked the halls of QP or City Hall is not germane to need to secure the Capitol.

AoD
 
lenaitch said:
Repelling and deterring are different things.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, I would argue the deterrent is not the display seen today.

I would argue the deterrent is both that the action achieved nothing................

and

That most of those involved either by way of organization or by way of assaults/theft/vandalism are being arrested and facing the full weight of the law.

That effectively answers the 2 questions you would assume any rational person would ask themselves...

"Will this accomplish what I want"?

"What are the consequences of this action"?

For the hopelessly irrational.......no amount of force on display changes anything, since their actions aren't founded in even convoluted logic.
 
Northern Light said:
This is true.

However, I would argue the deterrent is not the display seen today.

I would argue the deterrent is both that the action achieved nothing................

and

That most of those involved either by way of organization or by way of assaults/theft/vandalism are being arrested and facing the full weight of the law.

That effectively answers the 2 questions you would assume any rational person would ask themselves...

"Will this accomplish what I want"?

"What are the consequences of this action"?

For the hopelessly irrational.......no amount of force on display changes anything, since their actions aren't founded in even convoluted logic.
Click to expand...
You made it about assaults/theft/vandalism - when that's the least serious part. It is about a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the government, threatening the well-being and authority of legitimately elected representatives - with the goal of overturning a democratic election. That's insurrection, not mere "assault" or "vandalism:. The presence of the military is to discourage any attempt to take up arms against the government above all else.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Do you *really* want to compare Ontario Legislature or City Hall to the US Capitol on Jan 6th? I am normally quite sympathetic towards the call for a transparent, accessible legislature, but I think equating our relatively peaceful and civil experience as a guide to what "should be" in DC - especially in light of the continual and demonstrably serious threats - is fundamentally in error and a misreading of the circumstances. Whether you have walked the halls of QP or City Hall is not germane to need to secure the Capitol.

AoD
Click to expand...

Hmm, lets see; in 2014, only six years ago, we had an armed individual who actually killed a Canadian soldier, then proceeded to engage in a shoot-out w/security personnel inside Parliament.

Back in 1987, protesters actually stormed the Ontario legislature, overrunning security, and causing not a little bit of chaos.

See the story here with a first-hand account from Steve Paikan who as then a reporter at QP: https://www.tvo.org/article/the-day-protesters-stormed-queens-park

I don't think the comparison is unreasonable.
 
Northern Light said:
Hmm, lets see; in 2014, only six years ago, we had an armed individual who actually killed a Canadian soldier, then proceeded to engage in a shoot-out w/security personnel inside Parliament.

Back in 1987, protesters actually stormed the Ontario legislature, overrunning security, and causing not a little bit of chaos.

See the story here with a first-hand account from Steve Paikan who as then a reporter at QP: https://www.tvo.org/article/the-day-protesters-stormed-queens-park

I don't think the comparison is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

You want to compare a single deranged individual attacking the Parliament Hill to the Capitol on Jan 6th (nevermind that episode had revealed systematic weakness in the security of our Parliament) or protestors storming QP (they are a bunch of heavily armed individuals with known threats of violence, calling to hang our legislators, in the context of a highly charged (and false) claim of an illegitimate election and a society with a high level of violence right?) Don't compare apples to oranges.

AoD
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with one, the other or both.

Deterrence can be proactive (show of force, fences, locked door, etc.) or reactive (legal sanctions). It seems, in the events of Jan 6th, the former was lacking, the latter is underway as a result. A reasonable level of the former, however that is established, is generally preferred; that's why most of us lock our doors at night.

I do agree that violence against the machinery of the state is intrinsically more serious than storming and looting the local Best Buy; although I admit the folks in the store at the time probably don't see it that way.

Americans are quite surprised that, until not that many years ago, you could enter and wander about most parts of QP pretty much at will, and access to Parliament wasn't that much tighter.
 
lenaitch said:
OK, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with one, the other or both.

Deterrence can be proactive (show of force, fences, locked door, etc.) or reactive (legal sanctions). It seems, in the events of Jan 6th, the former was lacking, the latter is underway as a result. A reasonable level of the former, however that is established, is generally preferred; that's why most of us lock our doors at night.

I do agree that violence against the machinery of the state is intrinsically more serious than storming and looting the local Best Buy; although I admit the folks in the store at the time probably don't see it that way.

Americans are quite surprised that, until not that many years ago, you could enter and wander about most parts of QP pretty much at will, and access to Parliament wasn't that much tighter.
Click to expand...

You needn't agree with either of us; or you can agree with both of us, in parts.

Thoughtful opinions are always welcome, in all their variation.
 
Northern Light said:
As someone who has walked the halls of Queen's Park some, and City Hall more often (and for that matter, albeit much more rarely, Parliament), and someone who neither has a desire to be a victim, nor see anyone else there become one, I simply don't share your degree of apprehension.
Click to expand...

Dare I ask what you do for a living or will you have to kill me for asking?
 
Northern Light said:
I would find an openly militarized environment more than a bit problematic.
Click to expand...

That's because you understand the dangers of state oppression and how it always, but always, starts from a place of "security" or "benevolence".

And we know, or ought to know, that those who clamour for such "security" (and/or "benevolence") are those who think their rights are a fair trade, but more importantly think that everyone else's rights are a fair trade.

Those who see no problem with such militarisation see no problem with state control of individuals for purposes of "security".

The boot of the state tastes the same as the boot of any other group when it's kicked your teeth in.

That being said, militarising the Capitol is counterproductive anyway as it will only be used by the people who are set against the new government as proof of the state capture they've been going on about this whole time.
One can increase the safety of politicos there without making a fort out of it, besides. Unfortunately, those who require visuals of "security" in extreme will be disappointed.

I'm sure the US Capitol will be fine.....now, how about all those dead people in Chicago, since we're so concerned about people's safety down south?
 
I tried my best to avoid the US election as it takes up too much space and was aware of Andrew Yang only by chance through Joe Rogan, but missed Tulsi Gabbard.

The fact these people chose a doddering old fool owned by big money and a prosecutor whose greatest claim to fame is stuffing California's prisons over very capable and REASONABLE people like Yang and Gabbard is a tragedy.

I hope she sticks around because she'd do a lot more to bring the country together than Biden and Harris could even dream of.

Gabbard-Yang 2024!

She's a major in the US Army Reserve, by the by and no, she wouldn't like to see Washington militarised either......she's much too reasonable a person to go for that nonsense.
 
Richard White said:
Dare I ask what you do for a living or will you have to kill me for asking?
Click to expand...

LMAO...............you don't need to be a secret agent to spend time talking to DMs (Deputy Ministers) or pols..............

Though I wouldn't exaggerate in any way the amount of time I've spent doing that.........its happened a few times..........its not everyday life.

As for what I do or have done.............it has varied widely..............I have a rather curious CV...............
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top